[OT] Sarah Hughes and Harvard?

[nshapiro]

Al,

I take a slight exception to characterizing early decision as "when the admission bar is lowest"

I think it can be fairly presented as another desirable component of an applicant's profile.  In the same way as being a star athlete, a legacy, or an under-represented minority, an applicant expressing his/her committment to Cornell via early decision is another desirable quality that should be valued appropriately and considered when constructing the freshman class.

I accept the fact that the student from a disadvantaged background - urban, rural or suburban - without adequate guidance from his/her high school might have less access to the resources required to make an intelligent "early decision" decision.  I expect that this same disadvantaged background will also be a factor in Cornell's admissions decision, be it regular cycle or early decision.  

IMHO concern about equal access to early decision is a problem to be worked, not a reason to eliminate early decision.

[cquinn]

What are the consequences, if any, when an early decision admission backs out later?  

Is there a chance that come April a school would hand out a crappier aid package (not overall funding, but the mix) to an early decision student, knowing that the student might take it anyway since the school is their first choice?

[Al DeFlorio]

Neil Shapiro '83 wrote:

I take a slight exception to characterizing early decision as "when the admission bar is lowest"

Well, like it or not, it's a fact.  

Good luck trying to bring all secondary school counseling departments to an equal level.  Not many "legacies" in the neighborhoods I mentioned above.

[CUlater \'89]

Unless things have changed significantly since 1984, when I was applying to colleges, there is no way that the early decision/admission period is when the "admission bar is at its lowest".  Schools were much more selective as to admissions in December, as opposed to April.  This is, of course, understanable, since they do not want to fill up too many slots in their freshman class until they see the greater applicant pool and know what is available in each category.

[nshapiro]

Fine Al,

but I think that is no more potent an argument than:

1. The admission bar is lowest for legacies

2. The admission bar is lowest for under-represented minorities

3. The admission bar is lowest for varsity athletes.

adding

4. The admission bar is lowest for students who have promised to come to Cornell if admitted

is just creating another preferrred class of applicant, and Cornell is as justified in creating class #4 as it is in creating class #s 1,2, and 3.

[judy]

From my recent relearnings of the definition of "early decision" and "early action"...
"early decision" is like a binding contract so if you get in, you go, else you pay...how much, I"m not certain, but it's definitely not the full four years.
"early action" is not a binding contract. you get in but you still have the option to say...umm...let me think again...and say no if you want.

So with Cornell, if you apply early and get in, I think you're bound by the contract to attend...so what I'm wondering is...if you do want to go to Cornell but want to get a better financial aid package, what good would waving the other acceptance letters in their face do?

[nshapiro]

Its not "waving the other acceptance letters" that matters, but "waving the other financial aid packages".  Specifically, if you can show that other peer institutions have determined that your contribution is substantially less than Cornell's estimate, then the Financial Aid office will review their assessment.

I know that Cornell has let applicants (ok, an applicant that I know of) out of the commitment if the student presents valid evidence and Cornell cannot adjust the package.

[Al DeFlorio]

CUlater '89 wrote:

Unless things have changed significantly since 1984, when I was applying to colleges, there is no way that the early decision/admission period is when the "admission bar is at its lowest".  Schools were much more selective as to admissions in December, as opposed to April.

Do some homework.  That simply isn't the case.

[Al DeFlorio]

Feel free to look at it however you wish, Neil.

[Adam \'04]

[Q]The issue, Neil, is that if you're going to school in Harlem or Watts or Dorchester, you're less likely to be made aware of early decision, while, if you're from a Summit, NJ, or Greenwich, CT, school, you certainly will be.[/Q]

Point 1:
   How do you plan on holding the university accountable for ignorant portions of the population to current policies/practices?

[Q]And early decision is when the admissions bar is lowest, and when the slots start getting filled.{/Q]

Point 2:
   As for all times in the application process, the relative standard of admission depends on, in no particular order, your quality of application, major, reliability of past acceptants attending Cornell, race, special talent (athlete, musician, dancer, actor, artist...), status (legacy?), letters of recommendation, activities, grades and SAT's, and lastly where in the country you are applying from, and how you compare to the people from your area. The determinants for relative competitiveness for one student from a particular area are different from that of another student from a different area unless they end up in the same final pool of applicants. The bar is not actually a bar; it is more of a selective filter. The rate of filtration stays relatively constant. The quality of the applicants accepted is solely determined by average quality of the pool.
Take my senior class in high school as an example. I know of 9 people that were excepted to Cornell (2 early decision and 7 regular), and 6 are attending. I know of 6 students that applied early decision (including myself). The 4 students that did not get in got flat out rejected (thankfully not me). Of the other 4 that got in on regular decision they were statistically less competitive that the 4 early application rejects. This supports my point. The early applicant pool is sometime more competitive than the regular decision pool. Students have to evaluate the relative risk they are willing to take when they apply.

[Al DeFlorio]

Well, this interview (copyrighted 2001) with Yale's admissions director, Richard Shaw, is excerpted from the Yale Herald, which (I think) is an internal Yale news vehicle:

"He [Shaw] adds that he doesn't know if early acceptances are the place to look for diversity, since the early decision pool is traditionally very homogeneous. Don't worry, he says, we'll get the minorities in the next round.

"This initial lack of diversity is self-selected, the result of students who need to weigh financial aid offers and avoid the binding early decision process. But as Yale consistently accepts students at a more generous rate through the early process [my italics], Shaw acknowledges students may feel "compelled to commit.""

I'd say this is likely better information than your sample, Adam.

With that, I'll get off my soapbox.  Anyone really interested in this topic should read the article in The Atlantic.

[ugarte]

Hey Al! You want to give us a link to that article? No?  OK, I will.  :-)  

The follow up is online also.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/09/fallows.htm

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/fallowsfollowup.htm

Also, bearing in mind that I haven't read the articles yet, you write (and highlight) the phrase [q]Yale consistently accepts students at a more generous rate through the early process [/q], and use it as evidence that the bar is lower during the early decision period.  

That may be true, but your logic is faulty.  A "more generous rate" could be the result of at least two things: a lower bar (as suggested by you) or a more talented applicant pool (as suggested by Adam).  Of course, I do remember that when I was in high school, my peers thought of early decision as a way to get in to your "reach" school when the bar was lower (or by "lowering" the bar by showing a commitment to the school).

[Al DeFlorio]

Thanks for the links, bra.  Saved me from going to the library to reread Fallowes's piece.  Yes, when I was in high school--long ago, I regret to say--early decisions was the route to an easier admissions hurdle, and used primarily by those for whom financial aid was immaterial.

The original article is clearly worth reading if this issue is of interest to you.  I haven't yet read the follow-up.

[marty]

Neil, you listed the same four preferred groups that frosted my behind when my dear son was making applications last year.  Since he refused to lie himself into group number four he was at a disadvantage.  I thank god that the admissions people saw him for what he was and accepted him.....but how about those that get screwed by telling the truth and admitting that they aren't sure where they want to attend school.

To attempt to claim this game is a noble cause rather than the foolish chase it has become is  ::nut:: !

[Josh '99]

Maybe I'm confused, but I was under the impression that with Early Decision (as opposed to Early Action), once you've applied and been accepted, you're committed to attend that school, and if you even apply to other schools, you forfeit your acceptance to the school to which you applied Early Decision.